I am offended by this as a Christian. Surely the Crusader States existed for longer than the US, or many established nations. That's long enough to be a people. They were removed through violence and conquest, thus Jerusalem is rightful Norman clay and should be ceded to Norway.

Meanwhile, Constantinople was ruled by the Latin Empire for many a year, by the Holy Catholic Church as opposed to the (less than) Holy Orthodox Church. It must thus be annexed by Venice, which as we all know, is Austrian.

I am willing to consider other claims though. The Levant may be part of Iran or Italy, however I find these claims doubtful. Ideally the whole region, to Hungary, would be ceded to Mongolia.

So who is the designated referee that will send in their own troops to evict people from their homes in an effort to make peace? — Harry Hindu

Russia or France or a coalition of NATO and non-NATO countries? This remains to be discussed and determined. It isn't for me to decide.

Plus, people won't be evicted. Just relocated and in the vast majority of cases there won't even be relocation. Kurds already live in the territories they currently inhabit so it's just a matter of unifying them into a Kurdish state. Dividing Turkey along ethnic lines shouldn't be too hard either. Jews and Arabs in Israel are already largely divided on ethnic lines. etc.

And, as they say, where there is a will, there is a way. It would be a small price to pay for lasting peace, stability, prosperity, progress and civilization in the region and in the world.

Ah, so you are earnest.

I'm not sure which is worse: your proposal; or that some here have taken it seriously enough to address directly.

Guess I'll just shake my head and go elsewhere.

Guess I'll just shake my head and go elsewhere. — Banno

Though I see your point about this being silly, I do think it brings up a point I brought up earlier:

I hope everyone in British, Spanish, French, and other descended countries know the irony of the criticisms of imperialism. I guess it’s only ok if done before the 20th century? I believe Australia had a policy for “hunting” aborigine into the 20th century. Hey guys.. it's okay.. just "history" if done before the 20th century when YOUR ancestors benefited from it :lol:. You get to make up for it by being a human rights zealot now :roll:. — schopenhauer1

We can add in asymmetric warfare along with imperialism in there too. Hey, keep going about your business. It's only those people that are committing X atrocities. MY history gets me to "realize" the errors others are making.. Meanwhile, keep eating your ice cream and enjoying that view. You deserve it. In other words, have your cake and eat it too.

Though I see your point about this being silly, I do think it brings up a point I brought up earlier:
I hope everyone in British, Spanish, French, and other descended countries know the irony of the criticisms of imperialism. I guess it’s only ok if done before the 20th century? I believe Australia had a policy for “hunting” aborigine into the 20th century. Hey guys.. it's okay.. just "history" if done before the 20th century when YOUR ancestors benefited from it :lol:. You get to make up for it by being a human rights zealot now :roll:.
— schopenhauer1

We can add in asymmetric warfare along with imperialism in there too. Hey, keep going about your business. It's only those people that are committing X atrocities. MY history gets me to "realize" the errors others are making.. Meanwhile, keep eating your ice cream and enjoying that view. You deserve it. — schopenhauer1

That's "whataboutism." No one stands higher on a pile of bones and souls than does my own U.S., including all the denial and lack of contrition or reparation. But if what was wrong then is wrong now, two wrongs don't make it right. One might say the U.S. lacks moral authority to counsel one party or another in a conflict, but the U.S. has 100% moral authority to refrain from funding one side or the other.

That's "whataboutism." No one stands higher on a pile of bones and souls than does my own U.S., including all the denial and lack of contrition or reparation. But if what was wrong then is wrong now, two wrongs don't make it right. One might say the U.S. lacks moral authority to counsel one party or another in a conflict, but the U.S. has 100% moral authority to refrain from funding one side or the other. — James Riley

I just think it's an interesting thing that Western countries take a high ground after a certain establishment has been met.. I would say around WW2, one of the worst of atrocities.

In other words, "We're cool with the arrangement now.. Germany got their war-thing out of their system..America has manifest destiny, Britain has its social welfare and common wealth, America is basically backing the world's security so others can have their social welfare program.. Australia has its country, all the players in place" So NOW is the time to call foul.. Right NOW, no no, right NOW.

I just think it's an interesting thing that Western countries take a high ground after a certain establishment has been met.. I would say around WW2, one of the worst of atrocities. — schopenhauer1

Yeah, it's like the criminal who becomes so successful that he can go legit. The Plutocracy is chock full of them. And if you can only make it to death and leave your spoils to your spawn, they are gold.

See my second post too. But yes agreed.

In other words, "We're cool with the arrangement now.. Germany got their war-thing out of their system..America has manifest destiny, Britain has its social welfare and common wealth, America is basically backing the world's security so others can have their social welfare program.. Australia has its country, all the players in place" So NOW is the time to call foul.. Right NOW, no no, right NOW. — schopenhauer1

Your historical analysis makes it sound like this is new. It's not. It was done then. And, when it was done, the doers were making the same excuses that the doer now (Israel and it's defenders) are doing now. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. And we don't have to fund it.

Yeah, I'm just looking at it from the 3D perspective. The message seems to be, "You should have done X, Y, Z deeds prior to the 20th century (or at least WW2), otherwise you are SOL. Meanwhile, I'm going to lick my ice cream and enjoy my view from the history that we were able to accomplish. How convenient this all turned out".

Yeah, I'm just looking at it from the 3D perspective. The message seems to be, "You should have done X, Y, Z deeds prior to the 20th century (or at least WW2), otherwise you are SOL. Meanwhile, I'm going to lick my ice cream and enjoy my view from the history that we were able to accomplish. How convenient this all turned out". — schopenhauer1

There has always been a disconnect between aspirational idealism, and might-makes-right. If we were to allow the track record of the latter to inform or influence the former, then there would be no former. We would not be allowed to learn from history, or we would only take the lessons from it that current wrong actors are taking from it now: "Hey, the U.S. did it and it worked, so . . ."

All I'm saying is, the U.S. doesn't have to fund it. Giving $3.8b per year in military aid to a nuclear superpower so it can defend itself against a stateless territory with no air force, army or navy is $3.8b we could use here. It's not unlike the waste in response to 9/11.

There has always been a disconnect between aspirational idealism, and might-makes-right. If we were to allow the track record of the latter to inform or influence the former, then there would be no former. We would not be allowed to learn from history, or we would only take the lessons from it that current wrong actors are taking from it now: "Hey, the U.S. did it and it worked, so . . ." — James Riley

Yes this accords with what I think is true, which is that morality is actually "discovered" over time. The feelings are nascent but don't completely show up until it plays out and goes too far.

All I'm saying is, the U.S. doesn't have to fund it. Giving $3.8b per year in military aid to a nuclear superpower so it can defend itself against a stateless territory with no air force, army or navy is $3.8b we could use here. It's not unlike the waste in response to 9/11. — James Riley

It's more about strategic partner in an unstable region. More Real Politik than idealism. But again, taking the 3D approach, what is it when countries who have done pretty terrible things, but have already gotten its use and goals met from it mean? All the players are in place conveniently for the finger wagging. I'm guessing the people who were living in Native American societies would like their lifestyle back, no? Did your ancestors consider that they were moving to a land that was not originally the power/country/people that controlled it before they moved? Was it a justified move? I mean, these seem like stupid questions only because of the fog of historical perspective.

I mean, these seem like stupid questions only because of the fog of historical perspective. — schopenhauer1

I don't think they are stupid questions at all. In fact, as I indicated earlier, we "knew better" at the time, or at least ignored, dismissed or beat down those who objected. And it wasn't just the Indians objecting. There were those in our "own camp" who objected. Abolitionists, if you will. And all kinds of excuses were made (manifest destiny, savages, civilization, blacks were inherently inferior, etc.). But "might makes right" ruled the day and often does. It's easier to be magnanimous from the cat bird seat. I get that. And I understand why one might raise an eyebrow. But if we can't aspire to better for others, we can for ourselves. That whole Real Politik stuff, with strategic interests, oil, etc. keeps us in bed with monarchies, religious states, dictators, etc. Makes it hard to lead by example. But that doesn't mean we should quit. "Angels of our better nature" and all that.

Seems you misunderstood. Oh, well.

Seems you misunderstood. Oh, well. — Banno

I only misunderstand this last post. You mentioned how you thought this was a joke. I said I recognized the silliness of going backwards to who should own what but then used it as a jumping off point to point out the interesting case of those who benefit from nations built before the 20th century and those sort of "going through history" into the 21st century. Your ancestors benefited and you (collective we really) "benefit" from taking a long view. @James Riley understood, not sure why you don't.

this — schopenhauer1

As it stands, I've no clear idea of what "this" is - thread, OP, Apollodorus...?

but then used it as a jumping off point to point out the interesting case of those who benefit from nations built before the 20th century and those sort of "going through history" into the 21st century — schopenhauer1

Well, now that this has been addressed perhaps we could (re-) focus on the issue at hand.

OP pretty much.

Your plan involves a lot of loading, unloading, shipping, and dumping debris into the Marianas Trench. Too much trouble. It would be easier to just nuke the Temple Mount, then everyone everywhere could share its alleged holiness. And while we're at it, might as well get rid of several other centers of superstition and nonsense. Everyone can make up their own lists--but let's keep to under 10 nukes in all. — Bitter Crank

Oh but that wouldn't create the jobs that this kind of a huge operation would take. And using nukes creates a cloud of radiation that at worst could be blown by the wind to Europe. Greta wouldn't be happy.

Besides, once the wailing wall and Al-Aqsa mosque are on the bottom of the Marianas trench, James Cameron could direct an interesting film about "The Secrets of the Marianas trench -The Temple Mount". He likely would get easily finance from the religious fanatics.

There's already plastic bags at bottom of the Marianas trench, so religious rocks can easily fit there too as humanity has already trashed that serene place on Earth.